Heart rhythm · 2013
Clinical outcomes with synchronized left ventricular pacing: analysis of the adaptive CRT trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Birnie David, Lemke Bernd, Aonuma Kazutaka, Krum Henry, Lee Kathy Lai-Fun, Gasparini Maurizio, Starling Randall C, Milasinovic Goran, Gorcsan John, Houmsse Mahmoud, Abeyratne Athula, Sambelashvili Alex, Martin David O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acute studies have suggested that left ventricular pacing (LVP) may have benefits over biventricular pacing (BVP). The adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) algorithm provides LVP synchronized to produce fusion with the intrinsic activation when the intrinsic atrioventricular (AV) interval is normal. The randomized double-blind adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy trial demonstrated noninferiority of the aCRT algorithm compared to echocardiography-optimized BVP (control).
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether synchronized LVP (sLVP) resulted in better clinical outcomes.
METHODS: First, stratification by percent sLVP (%sLVP) and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relationship between %sLVP and clinical outcomes. Second, outcomes were compared between patients in the aCRT arm (n = 318) and control patients (n = 160) stratified by intrinsic AV interval at randomization.
RESULTS: In the aCRT arm, %sLVP ≥50% (n = 142) was independently associated with a decreased risk of death or heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.85; P = .012) compared with %sLVP <50% (n = 172). A greater proportion of patients with %sLVP ≥50% improved in Packer's clinical composite score at 6-month (82% vs. 68%; P = .002) and 12-month (80% vs. 62%; P = .0006) follow-ups compared to controls. In the subgroup with normal AV (n = 241), there was a lower risk of death or heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.98; P = .044) with the aCRT algorithm. A greater proportion of patients in the aCRT arm improved in the clinical composite score at 6-month (81% vs. 69%; P = .041) and 12-month (77% vs. 66%; P = .076) follow-ups compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher %sLVP was independently associated with superior clinical outcomes. In patients with normal AV conduction, the aCRT algorithm provided mostly sLVP and demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to echocardiography-optimized BVP.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether synchronized LVP (sLVP) resulted in better clinical outcomes.
METHODS: First, stratification by percent sLVP (%sLVP) and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relationship between %sLVP and clinical outcomes. Second, outcomes were compared between patients in the aCRT arm (n = 318) and control patients (n = 160) stratified by intrinsic AV interval at randomization.
RESULTS: In the aCRT arm, %sLVP ≥50% (n = 142) was independently associated with a decreased risk of death or heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.85; P = .012) compared with %sLVP <50% (n = 172). A greater proportion of patients with %sLVP ≥50% improved in Packer's clinical composite score at 6-month (82% vs. 68%; P = .002) and 12-month (80% vs. 62%; P = .0006) follow-ups compared to controls. In the subgroup with normal AV (n = 241), there was a lower risk of death or heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.98; P = .044) with the aCRT algorithm. A greater proportion of patients in the aCRT arm improved in the clinical composite score at 6-month (81% vs. 69%; P = .041) and 12-month (77% vs. 66%; P = .076) follow-ups compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher %sLVP was independently associated with superior clinical outcomes. In patients with normal AV conduction, the aCRT algorithm provided mostly sLVP and demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to echocardiography-optimized BVP.